Community

I know this issue has been discussed to death, but I'd like to once
again question the rationale behind changing the meaning of the 'const'
keyword between 1.0 and 2.0, given that the choice of keywords for const
features in 2.0 seems completely arbitrary.
In D 1.0, 'const' is essentially the same as 'invariant' in D 2.0. It's
true that 'const' works just as well for the average situation in D 2.0,
but what if I have a ton of constants in a D 1.0 library that I want to
work the same way in D 2.0? ie. in D 1.0 the 'const' label means I can
use the value without synchronization for multithreaded programming,
etc. In D 2.0, this role is filled by 'invariant' and 'const' has been
weakened to mean "read-only view," which is not at all the same thing.
I suppose what I'm asking is how I should go about making a library
maximally cross-compatible with D 1.0 and 2.0, given the changed meaning
of 'const'?
Sean

Sean Kelly wrote:
> I know this issue has been discussed to death, but I'd like to once
> again question the rationale behind changing the meaning of the 'const'
> keyword between 1.0 and 2.0, given that the choice of keywords for const
> features in 2.0 seems completely arbitrary.
>
> In D 1.0, 'const' is essentially the same as 'invariant' in D 2.0. It's
> true that 'const' works just as well for the average situation in D 2.0,
> but what if I have a ton of constants in a D 1.0 library that I want to
> work the same way in D 2.0? ie. in D 1.0 the 'const' label means I can
> use the value without synchronization for multithreaded programming,
> etc. In D 2.0, this role is filled by 'invariant' and 'const' has been
> weakened to mean "read-only view," which is not at all the same thing.
>
> I suppose what I'm asking is how I should go about making a library
> maximally cross-compatible with D 1.0 and 2.0, given the changed meaning
> of 'const'?
>
>
> Sean
Mixins.

Robert Fraser wrote:
> Sean Kelly wrote:
>> I know this issue has been discussed to death, but I'd like to once
>> again question the rationale behind changing the meaning of the 'const'
>> keyword between 1.0 and 2.0, given that the choice of keywords for const
>> features in 2.0 seems completely arbitrary.
>>
>> In D 1.0, 'const' is essentially the same as 'invariant' in D 2.0. It's
>> true that 'const' works just as well for the average situation in D 2.0,
>> but what if I have a ton of constants in a D 1.0 library that I want to
>> work the same way in D 2.0? ie. in D 1.0 the 'const' label means I can
>> use the value without synchronization for multithreaded programming,
>> etc. In D 2.0, this role is filled by 'invariant' and 'const' has been
>> weakened to mean "read-only view," which is not at all the same thing.
>>
>> I suppose what I'm asking is how I should go about making a library
>> maximally cross-compatible with D 1.0 and 2.0, given the changed meaning
>> of 'const'?
>
> Mixins.
That suggests I should do something like this:
mixin("const") i = 5;
But as far as I know, string mixins must be expressions or complete
statements. How would I declare a series of const values using mixins?
Sean

Sean Kelly wrote:
> Robert Fraser wrote:
>> Sean Kelly wrote:
>>> I know this issue has been discussed to death, but I'd like to once
>>> again question the rationale behind changing the meaning of the 'const'
>>> keyword between 1.0 and 2.0, given that the choice of keywords for const
>>> features in 2.0 seems completely arbitrary.
>>>
>>> In D 1.0, 'const' is essentially the same as 'invariant' in D 2.0. It's
>>> true that 'const' works just as well for the average situation in D 2.0,
>>> but what if I have a ton of constants in a D 1.0 library that I want to
>>> work the same way in D 2.0? ie. in D 1.0 the 'const' label means I can
>>> use the value without synchronization for multithreaded programming,
>>> etc. In D 2.0, this role is filled by 'invariant' and 'const' has been
>>> weakened to mean "read-only view," which is not at all the same thing.
>>>
>>> I suppose what I'm asking is how I should go about making a library
>>> maximally cross-compatible with D 1.0 and 2.0, given the changed meaning
>>> of 'const'?
>> Mixins.
>
> That suggests I should do something like this:
>
> mixin("const") i = 5;
>
> But as far as I know, string mixins must be expressions or complete
> statements. How would I declare a series of const values using mixins?
>
>
> Sean
I was half-kidding since it would probably be a terrible solution. I was
thinking something like:
char[] constant(char[] declaration)
{
version(D_Version_2)
return "invariant " ~ declaration ~ ";";
else
return "const " ~ declaration ~ ";";
}
mixin(constant("i = 5"));
But I agree that the names should be changed.

Robert Fraser wrote:
> Sean Kelly wrote:
>> Robert Fraser wrote:
>>> Sean Kelly wrote:
>>>> I know this issue has been discussed to death, but I'd like to once
>>>> again question the rationale behind changing the meaning of the 'const'
>>>> keyword between 1.0 and 2.0, given that the choice of keywords for
>>>> const
>>>> features in 2.0 seems completely arbitrary.
>>>>
>>>> In D 1.0, 'const' is essentially the same as 'invariant' in D 2.0.
>>>> It's
>>>> true that 'const' works just as well for the average situation in D
>>>> 2.0,
>>>> but what if I have a ton of constants in a D 1.0 library that I want to
>>>> work the same way in D 2.0? ie. in D 1.0 the 'const' label means I can
>>>> use the value without synchronization for multithreaded programming,
>>>> etc. In D 2.0, this role is filled by 'invariant' and 'const' has been
>>>> weakened to mean "read-only view," which is not at all the same thing.
>>>>
>>>> I suppose what I'm asking is how I should go about making a library
>>>> maximally cross-compatible with D 1.0 and 2.0, given the changed
>>>> meaning
>>>> of 'const'?
>>> Mixins.
>>
>> That suggests I should do something like this:
>>
>> mixin("const") i = 5;
>>
>> But as far as I know, string mixins must be expressions or complete
>> statements. How would I declare a series of const values using mixins?
>>
>>
>> Sean
>
> I was half-kidding since it would probably be a terrible solution. I was
> thinking something like:
>
> char[] constant(char[] declaration)
> {
> version(D_Version_2)
> return "invariant " ~ declaration ~ ";";
> else
> return "const " ~ declaration ~ ";";
> }
>
> mixin(constant("i = 5"));
Yeah, it would be pretty terrible :-) But it'd do the trick in a pinch.
I posted my message half out of frustration and half fishing for the
cleanest way to do this in case we're stuck with things as they are.
Sean

"Sean Kelly" wrote
> Robert Fraser wrote:
>> Sean Kelly wrote:
>>> Robert Fraser wrote:
>>>> Sean Kelly wrote:
>>>>> I know this issue has been discussed to death, but I'd like to once
>>>>> again question the rationale behind changing the meaning of the
>>>>> 'const'
>>>>> keyword between 1.0 and 2.0, given that the choice of keywords for
>>>>> const
>>>>> features in 2.0 seems completely arbitrary.
>>>>>
>>>>> In D 1.0, 'const' is essentially the same as 'invariant' in D 2.0.
>>>>> It's
>>>>> true that 'const' works just as well for the average situation in D
>>>>> 2.0,
>>>>> but what if I have a ton of constants in a D 1.0 library that I want
>>>>> to
>>>>> work the same way in D 2.0? ie. in D 1.0 the 'const' label means I
>>>>> can
>>>>> use the value without synchronization for multithreaded programming,
>>>>> etc. In D 2.0, this role is filled by 'invariant' and 'const' has
>>>>> been
>>>>> weakened to mean "read-only view," which is not at all the same thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suppose what I'm asking is how I should go about making a library
>>>>> maximally cross-compatible with D 1.0 and 2.0, given the changed
>>>>> meaning
>>>>> of 'const'?
>>>> Mixins.
>>>
>>> That suggests I should do something like this:
>>>
>>> mixin("const") i = 5;
>>>
>>> But as far as I know, string mixins must be expressions or complete
>>> statements. How would I declare a series of const values using mixins?
>>>
>>>
>>> Sean
>>
>> I was half-kidding since it would probably be a terrible solution. I was
>> thinking something like:
>>
>> char[] constant(char[] declaration)
>> {
>> version(D_Version_2)
>> return "invariant " ~ declaration ~ ";";
>> else
>> return "const " ~ declaration ~ ";";
>> }
>>
>> mixin(constant("i = 5"));
>
> Yeah, it would be pretty terrible :-) But it'd do the trick in a pinch.
> I posted my message half out of frustration and half fishing for the
> cleanest way to do this in case we're stuck with things as they are.
>
>
> Sean
I know it's ugly, but for integral constants, you should be able to use enum
consistently:
enum
{
i = 5,
...
}
-Steve